BRCA proposals

[Lee]

I cant believe i let him get away with that one


*must try harder*

[ashleyb4]

Northy your on crack it makes sence to me tom.

If ive understood tom corrently he wants to keep the percentage as its a more suitable option if them numbers drop.

[Northy]

Ash, I understand percentages!

[Cockerill]

Originally Posted by Lee

its not like it would ever go over 50 really?

'Cos people think nearly 50 F1's is too many, so the committee were asked to 're-think' the license grades for this years AGM, which they have done, and then we get to vote on it

This way we can never have more than 35 F1's, and it can never be more than 33% of the total entry (for each class).

[James]

I think its fine as it is

[Northy]

Even with the cap you could in theory have 70 F1's!

Wasn't the cut off about 38 this year? that's not too many is it? And it was a good entry.

Who was asked to 're-think' it?

G

[Cockerill]

From the '07 minutes:

Rules 21.4.1, 21.4.2 and 21.4.3 The above rules will be maintained as stated for licence grades resulting from the 2007 Championships that will be awarded for the 2008 season.

The Off-Road committee to be empowered to investigate the complete structure of the licence grade system covered by the above rules. The proposal for restructure to be published on the BRCA website by 28.02.08. This will form the basis of a committee proposal to be lodged at the 2008 AGM to take affect for licences awarded for 2009. (Rationale: - The current licence grade system has become distorted due to the large entries experienced at National events in recent years. Any changes will affect the entire racing community so needs careful planning. The proposal needs to be made public before the start of 2008 racing, so that drivers know what is required of them for 2009)

Proposed: Paul Worsley Seconded Phil Sleigh – Carried unanimously

[dave g]

4 rounds of qualifying but the last one done on generally

[DaveG28]

Hmmm, hadn't thought about this before, but ideally if Lipos are passed we could do with them being allowed in the indoor finals, it'll be a bitch to keep the nimh's in good working order when not using them, and how many people will have Lipo Cats or hacked other chassis by then that nimh won't fit in!?

[Cockerill]

To me the way it reads is that it will be effective as of 1st Jan 2009, the sticking point would be indoor regionals as half would have to run to NiMh, half would be run to Lipo AND NiMh.

[DaveG28]

Originally Posted by Cockerill

To me the way it reads is that it will be effective as of 1st Jan 2009, the sticking point would be indoor regionals as half would have to run to NiMh, half would be run to Lipo AND NiMh.

In the past though the indoor finals has always run to the prior years rules, in this case 2008. They overrode it this year due to the IB "instead of chargin I'll blow your frikkin hand off Guv'ner" problem!!!

[Cockerill]

Originally Posted by DaveG28

In the past though the indoor finals has always run to the prior years rules

Whilst that is true, the proposal reads:

Amend to read “Cars will be driven by a maximum of six rechargeable Nimh cells or two rechargeable Lithium Polymer cells in stick or saddle pack configuration, which cannot be replaced after a race has started.
(Rationale – To allow the use of Lithium Polymer (Lipo) batteries at 1/10 Off Road Regional and National events in 2009.

To me, the bit in bold means that the rule will be effective of Jan 1st. I guess we will have to wait and see. I'm sure common sense will prevail as per usual with the BRCA

[Lee]

Originally Posted by Cockerill

I'm sure common sense will prevail as per usual with the BRCA

Do i sense a hint of sarcasm

[super__dan]

No I don' think so, I very much agree that in most cases common sense prevails at all times.

Tom, don't think that proposal is intended to re write the rules of when cells of whatever type become legal. However as the proposals are debated and voted at the AGM it will be sorted by those who attend on the day.

[Lee]

I have a question regarding proposals,

Can they be altered/ammended on the day during the discussion/debate or is it a case of this is the proposal and this is what we are voting for/against

Thanks in advance


And i agree Dan, in the offroad section common sense does prevail, but in other classes it does not.

I remember Teemu Leino having his FTD and pole taking off him because he didnt have lights on his shell

Nobody thought about how fast he would have gone if he could see where he was going.

[trekkerkk]

on the lipo discussion,
ive heard that there are lipos coming out that will fit in the same space as the nimh that we are using now,
i think that these should be the benchmark for the rule as no modifacations would be required,

trekkker

[super__dan]

There are Lipo that fit in the same space now surely? I did nothing to try a trackpower stick pack on the weekend. Some have wires out of the top/side, but so do cheapo sport nicad packs which are still deemed legal.

[Body Paint]

If you took the LIPO battery itself most of the commercially available lipos would fit in the current cars.

But, we all insist that the battery is covered in a plastic case which adds a couple of mm to all the dimensions.

If you were to put a plasitic case on your NIMHs they wouldn't fit in your car either, in fact if you put an extra layer of heatshrink on some of last years cells they wouldn't fit in your half the cars.

[ashleyb4]

But the case is there for a reason to protct the lipo.

A

[Richard Lowe]

Originally Posted by Cockerill

“Cars will be driven by a maximum of six rechargeable Nimh cells or two rechargeable Lithium Polymer cells in stick or saddle pack configuration...

Doesn't this exclude certain saddle packs that have more than one cell in parallel inside each 'saddle'? I'd have to check up on this but doesn't the Trakpower 4800 saddle have 3 cells in parallel in each saddle, then both saddles in series - giving 6 cells but still 7.4v?